Republican candidate 'body-slams' Guardian reporter in Montana

[SCRawl]

Given today's circumstances, early voting is a must even if it is made a holiday. Even with the calls for moving voting to a weekend, minimum wage earners are more likely required to work those days.

This is bullshit. Just about everybody works on Tuesdays. New York has laws that state that employers must allow employees the opportunity to leave work to vote (even if unpaid). The polls are also open from 6am - 9pm, which is a window plenty big enough for someone to find the time to vote. I imagine other states are similar.

- Ever seen some of those lineups at the polling stations? There's no way to get it all done in a single day when (as in many regions) legislators limit the number and location of polling stations with the intention of lowering vote counts.
- Laws requiring employers to allow their employees to vote aren't worth anything if the employers decide to be pricks about it and their employees are too insecure in their employment to complain. This describes a significant portion of the electorate. Laws can't fix everything.

So, no, not bullshit. The reality on the ground requires greater access to the polls than just a single day.

[Elheru Aran]

Here in sunny Colorado, you can mail in your ballot as soon as you receive it if you want to, without ever leaving your own home, but they don't count it until election day, which I think solves everyone's objections.

The idea is that the vote has already been cast before a scandal pop up. If it was something big enough to warrant a change in the ballot, too bad. There is not a method to overwrite your own vote that I'm aware of.

This is a definite downside of early voting/vote-by-mail. The only way to get around that is to perhaps have some kind of electronic option, say an unique key-code on your ballot on a tear-off stub; you tear it off before you put the ballot into your envelope, mail it in, but if you have reason to change your vote before the actual election day (at which date the ballot would be fixed and you could not change it), you go to a simple website, put in your authentication, and it cancels the ballot.

Of course, that's open to abuse, but so is practically every voting method used in the States...

[Raw Shark]

Here in sunny Colorado, you can mail in your ballot as soon as you receive it if you want to, without ever leaving your own home, but they don't count it until election day, which I think solves everyone's objections.

The idea is that the vote has already been cast before a scandal pop up. If it was something big enough to warrant a change in the ballot, too bad. There is not a method to overwrite your own vote that I'm aware of.

True. That is a downside. But I don't have to cast my vote before the day; the option is available.

[houser2112]

Here in sunny Colorado, you can mail in your ballot as soon as you receive it if you want to, without ever leaving your own home, but they don't count it until election day, which I think solves everyone's objections.

The idea is that the vote has already been cast before a scandal pop up. If it was something big enough to warrant a change in the ballot, too bad. There is not a method to overwrite your own vote that I'm aware of.

Considering how polarized politics in this country have become, I can't imagine anything that would persuade me to change my vote in a non-primary election. I may not like the Democratic candidate, but I surely don't want to be represented by a Republican.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yup. It would take a very, very bad Democrat indeed, like Trump-level bad (or an actual viable independent/third party candidate I liked), to make me not vote Democrat, because the Republican party went insane a decade or two back, and their idea of "government" is a fucking atrocity.

Given today's circumstances, early voting is a must even if it is made a holiday. Even with the calls for moving voting to a weekend, minimum wage earners are more likely required to work those days.

This is bullshit. Just about everybody works on Tuesdays. New York has laws that state that employers must allow employees the opportunity to leave work to vote (even if unpaid). The polls are also open from 6am - 9pm, which is a window plenty big enough for someone to find the time to vote. I imagine other states are similar.

- Ever seen some of those lineups at the polling stations? There's no way to get it all done in a single day when (as in many regions) legislators limit the number and location of polling stations with the intention of lowering vote counts.
- Laws requiring employers to allow their employees to vote aren't worth anything if the employers decide to be pricks about it and their employees are too insecure in their employment to complain. This describes a significant portion of the electorate. Laws can't fix everything.

So, no, not bullshit. The reality on the ground requires greater access to the polls than just a single day.

There are answers to both of those problems that avoid any issues with early voting (although I see merits to early voting as well, particularly as an absentee voter, and as a rule I will always prefer to err on the side of greater access to voting rights).

The first problem can be addressed simply by setting up more polling stations. Yes, this requires legislators who support voting rights, but so does any solution to lack of access to voting rights.

The second is a good argument for Bernie Sander's proposal to make election day a national holiday.

[Simon_Jester]

Here in sunny Colorado, you can mail in your ballot as soon as you receive it if you want to, without ever leaving your own home, but they don't count it until election day, which I think solves everyone's objections.

The idea is that the vote has already been cast before a scandal pop up. If it was something big enough to warrant a change in the ballot, too bad. There is not a method to overwrite your own vote that I'm aware of.

Considering how polarized politics in this country have become, I can't imagine anything that would persuade me to change my vote in a non-primary election. I may not like the Democratic candidate, but I surely don't want to be represented by a Republican.

What if the Democratic candidate was a thuggish millionaire who beats up reporters, and the Republican candidate wasn't?

[Ralin]

What if the Democratic candidate was a thuggish millionaire who beats up reporters, and the Republican candidate wasn't?

Are they Fox News reporters or something like that?

[The Romulan Republic]

The idea is that the vote has already been cast before a scandal pop up. If it was something big enough to warrant a change in the ballot, too bad. There is not a method to overwrite your own vote that I'm aware of.

Considering how polarized politics in this country have become, I can't imagine anything that would persuade me to change my vote in a non-primary election. I may not like the Democratic candidate, but I surely don't want to be represented by a Republican.

What if the Democratic candidate was a thuggish millionaire who beats up reporters, and the Republican candidate wasn't?

Depends how thuggish? Are we talking "asshole with an anger management problem on a personal level" or "strong man/despot in the making"?

[bilateralrope]

Here in sunny Colorado, you can mail in your ballot as soon as you receive it if you want to, without ever leaving your own home, but they don't count it until election day, which I think solves everyone's objections.

The idea is that the vote has already been cast before a scandal pop up. If it was something big enough to warrant a change in the ballot, too bad. There is not a method to overwrite your own vote that I'm aware of.

A scandal can still be a problem if everyone votes in voting booths if the scandal happens the day after election day.

[Flagg]

The idea is that the vote has already been cast before a scandal pop up. If it was something big enough to warrant a change in the ballot, too bad. There is not a method to overwrite your own vote that I'm aware of.

Considering how polarized politics in this country have become, I can't imagine anything that would persuade me to change my vote in a non-primary election. I may not like the Democratic candidate, but I surely don't want to be represented by a Republican.

What if the Democratic candidate was a thuggish millionaire who beats up reporters, and the Republican candidate wasn't?

It depends, really. Being a thuggish asshole who assaults reporters doesn't mean they will be a bad legislator and +1 Democrat is a net gain.

That said, I'd hope criminal proceedings would take place and if convicted/plea bargained it would be as a felony and the shithead would be forced to resign and another special election would take place.

Unfortunately I doubt the criminal proceedings would happen and if they did it would almost certainly be some misdemeanor bullshit with a fine and maybe community service.

[Flagg]

What if the Democratic candidate was a thuggish millionaire who beats up reporters, and the Republican candidate wasn't?

Are they Fox News reporters or something like that?

Honestly, unless the reporters are even more obnoxious than usual by many orders of magnitude, I don't think assaulting them is ever called for. The candidate should get arrested and have their mug shot plastered all over the news. You know going in as you run for office that you will have to deal with the press and if that's too much for you then you don't belong in politics.

The only time I really think assaulting news media is called for is when the vulture cocksuckers mob the poor families of plane crash victims.

[Simon_Jester]

Are they Fox News reporters or something like that?

Depends how thuggish? Are we talking "asshole with an anger management problem on a personal level" or "strong man/despot in the making"?

I hope neither of you was even slightly unhappy, then, that Gianforte secured election, and didn't even briefly think "typical Republicans electing a terrible person to office."

Because seriously, this is a very important basic point: yes, character matters in elections. What kind of person you are and how you think about basic democratic institutions matter.

If you're exasperated with Republicans for voting for Trump, and for not turning against him as his manifest incompetence and poor character is revealed, you cannot turn around and say "well, I'll support a guy who assaults reporters as long as he's a member of my party."

What if the Democratic candidate was a thuggish millionaire who beats up reporters, and the Republican candidate wasn't?

It depends, really. Being a thuggish asshole who assaults reporters doesn't mean they will be a bad legislator and +1 Democrat is a net gain.

That said, I'd hope criminal proceedings would take place and if convicted/plea bargained it would be as a felony and the shithead would be forced to resign and another special election would take place.

See, the problem is that when your party gets into the habit of treating thuggish assholes as people who can belong in its metaphorical 'tent,' it doesn't take very long before such people start to take over more and more of your party. Because if you're appealing to a lowest common denominator population by being a dumb person's idea of a smart person, or a weak person's idea of a strong person, then bullying creeps have a huge advantage over normal, sane people in securing power within your party.

This is exactly what's happening to the Republicans; they're turning into the party of bullying creeps.

[houser2112]

Considering how polarized politics in this country have become, I can't imagine anything that would persuade me to change my vote in a non-primary election. I may not like the Democratic candidate, but I surely don't want to be represented by a Republican.

What if the Democratic candidate was a thuggish millionaire who beats up reporters, and the Republican candidate wasn't?

The Democrats putting up such a guy qualifies as something "I can't imagine". Going by the example of Trump advocating violence against people who disagree with him, it doesn't surprise me that the Republicans would.

[Flagg]

What if the Democratic candidate was a thuggish millionaire who beats up reporters, and the Republican candidate wasn't?

It depends, really. Being a thuggish asshole who assaults reporters doesn't mean they will be a bad legislator and +1 Democrat is a net gain.

That said, I'd hope criminal proceedings would take place and if convicted/plea bargained it would be as a felony and the shithead would be forced to resign and another special election would take place.

See, the problem is that when your party gets into the habit of treating thuggish assholes as people who can belong in its metaphorical 'tent,' it doesn't take very long before such people start to take over more and more of your party. Because if you're appealing to a lowest common denominator population by being a dumb person's idea of a smart person, or a weak person's idea of a strong person, then bullying creeps have a huge advantage over normal, sane people in securing power within your party.

This is exactly what's happening to the Republicans; they're turning into the party of bullying creeps.

I agree completely, I'm just being honest with you and to that extent, myself. Short of really serious provocation there is no excuse for assaulting and battering anyone. I don't want fuckers like that in government at any level. But if he were a Democrat being elected to a House controlled by Democrats, I'd vote for him over a Republican just for the +1 Democrat in the majority with the hope that the House of Representatives does what they did to Foley the page fondler (I think it was Foley anyway, I could be mistaken) and vote to expel him triggering another special election as long as he's been convicted/plead guilty to the felony. If not, I'd vote for his opponent (hoping he had one) in the primary.

I'd like to think both parties (with some glimmer of it actually happening were he a Democrat in a Democratic House but I'm not even going to hold my breath to yawn as the situation sits now with the GOP) would do the proper thing as described above, but they won't.

And this congress sure as fuck won't because he's a member of the Republicans who are in power and more importantly he assaulted and battered a journalist from a left wing news organization. If they could, they'd likely give him a medal. My guess is that he earned whitey flyover state "street cred" with his supporters and won over many who weren't paying much attention.

And really, this is the culture of the GOP now that President Peckerwood opened the floodgates and all of the racist, misogynist, homophobes, and general dregs of "humanity" feel safe enough to climb out from under the fridge like so many cockroaches and pulled off their "person masks" to reveal their inner psychopaths.

So we go full circle into the hypothetical and want that +1 seat with a Democrats ass in it. I don't like it, I feel sufficiently dirty about it to know I still possess a great amount of empathy, and were I in a position to help unseat the pile of shit ASAP without compromising the Democratic hold of the House I'd help carry the rail he was being driven out of town on, hernia be damned.

Does that make sense?

[Flagg]

And to add another factor, timing is a lot of the issue. I mean I have no real doubt the bastard would have been elected (possibly with a higher margin of victory) had this event occurred 3 months ago. However I'd imagine that were he arrested, booked, and had his mugshot shown on every local, state, regional, and national news program/network there would have been a real opportunity to damage him enough (especially if other victims, should they exist, started coming forward) that the Montana Cow Fucking Guild GOP could have replaced him depending on polling (the survey kind of polling, not the Weekly Wednesday Bovine Polling). And failing that, the Democrats may have found a way to get him disqualified somehow due to the criminal charges.

And were I dead and in hell a resident of Montana and this chucklefuck were a Democrat, I'd be pushing to drop him from the ticket and replace him with someone who matured past the 8th grade and didn't assault and batter people.

[Kelp]

Well, there was an incident where a Democratic politician assaulted an interviewer. It happened in my home state, North Carolina. I don't remember ever hearing anything about it back then.

Anyway, it takes two to tango. One instigated the altercation, the other escalated, and we have an incident. Road rages tend to begin this way. One perceived offense and they go honking and flipping birdies and brake checking until law enforcement become involved. It's hard to find sympathies for either party when they're both assholes.

[Flagg]

Well, there was an incident where a Democratic politician assaulted an interviewer. It happened in my home state, North Carolina. I don't remember ever hearing anything about it back then.

Anyway, it takes two to tango. One instigated the altercation, the other escalated, and we have an incident. Road rages tend to begin this way. One perceived offense and they go honking and flipping birdies and brake checking until law enforcement become involved. It's hard to find sympathies for either party when they're both assholes.

Yeah, I'm sure Matthew Shepherd's homosexual pheromones were understandable provocation and he deserved what he got.

[The Romulan Republic]

Are they Fox News reporters or something like that?

Depends how thuggish? Are we talking "asshole with an anger management problem on a personal level" or "strong man/despot in the making"?

I hope neither of you was even slightly unhappy, then, that Gianforte secured election, and didn't even briefly think "typical Republicans electing a terrible person to office."

Because seriously, this is a very important basic point: yes, character matters in elections. What kind of person you are and how you think about basic democratic institutions matter.

If you're exasperated with Republicans for voting for Trump, and for not turning against him as his manifest incompetence and poor character is revealed, you cannot turn around and say "well, I'll support a guy who assaults reporters as long as he's a member of my party."

Of course character matters, and I wouldn't want to elect an asshole. I merely said that I would prefer to elect an asshole over an aspiring tyrant.

Gianforte, though, strikes me as more than just an individual asshole, because his actions take place in the context of an on-going war against the free press, led by a Republican President.

Also, please don't lump my response in with Ralin's. Mine was a reflection of my willingness to tolerate a certain degree of assholishness in politics if the alternative is worse. His was Left wing Tea Party "Hah hah, its okay if we're the ones beating up the opposition."

[Ralin]

I hope neither of you was even slightly unhappy, then, that Gianforte secured election, and didn't even briefly think "typical Republicans electing a terrible person to office."

Because seriously, this is a very important basic point: yes, character matters in elections. What kind of person you are and how you think about basic democratic institutions matter.

If you're exasperated with Republicans for voting for Trump, and for not turning against him as his manifest incompetence and poor character is revealed, you cannot turn around and say "well, I'll support a guy who assaults reporters as long as he's a member of my party."

Hmm, well, let's see. Fox News and the like are the propaganda wing of the Republican Party and other fucks who oppose gay rights, rights for women, support sending refugees back to be murdered by ISIS, etc. Papers like the Guardian...aren't.

So yeah, I can totally condemn Republicans for voting for Trump and supporting him despite his being an evil shit and still cheer anyone who gives one of them a taste of the beat down they deserve. Hurting shits like that when you can get away with it is a sign of good character. Fuck 'basic democratic institutions;' people like that shouldn't have rights and anything that shuts them up is a good thing.

Also, please don't lump my response in with Ralin's. Mine was a reflection of my willingness to tolerate a certain degree of assholishness in politics if the alternative is worse. His was Left wing Tea Party "Hah hah, its okay if we're the ones beating up the opposition."

Psst: It is okay when the people getting beaten up are Trump supporters.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm just going to assume Ralin is trolling for reactions, so yawn.

The Democrats putting up such a guy qualifies as something "I can't imagine". Going by the example of Trump advocating violence against people who disagree with him, it doesn't surprise me that the Republicans would.

I'm trying to get people to think seriously about what they would do if the physical roles were reversed, though, without flipping the ideological ones. You can say "but that would never happen!" all you want, and I'm not even disagreeing with you. But it's still an important question.

How much personal vice (and viciousness) are you prepared to tolerate in a candidate who agrees with you? From the sound of it, an honest answer to that question in your case might help one understand why Republicans are so slow to desert Trump even as he blatantly violates countless principles of good government and acts massively corrupt on every level.

[Ralin]

I'm just going to assume Ralin is trolling for reactions, so yawn.

Go fuck yourself. I don't troll. Ever.

[Gandalf]

How much personal vice (and viciousness) are you prepared to tolerate in a candidate who agrees with you? From the sound of it, an honest answer to that question in your case might help one understand why Republicans are so slow to desert Trump even as he blatantly violates countless principles of good government and acts massively corrupt on every level.

It sounds like a weird redux of the Obama 2012 discussion, just substitute slamming a guy for an unaccountable drone strike program.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm just going to assume Ralin is trolling for reactions, so yawn.

Go fuck yourself. I don't troll. Ever.

Yawn. I mean seriously, "it's okay when the people getting beaten up are Trump supporters?" You're not even trying.

How much personal vice (and viciousness) are you prepared to tolerate in a candidate who agrees with you? From the sound of it, an honest answer to that question in your case might help one understand why Republicans are so slow to desert Trump even as he blatantly violates countless principles of good government and acts massively corrupt on every level.

It sounds like a weird redux of the Obama 2012 discussion, just substitute slamming a guy for an unaccountable drone strike program.

Thing is, the drone strike program was a policy matter, not just terrible personal behavior. Body-slamming a reporter is something this guy did personally, he didn't propose to pass a law mandating that all left-leaning newspaper reporters get a weekly body-slam or something.

Regarding Obama... if you think it's unforgivable that he was randomly blowing up designated Very Bad Men with Hellfire missiles, that's fine and you can make a case for it. But that wasn't an issue with Obama's behavior, it was an issue with him doing something in his capacity as president that was wrong.

Your version of the question I'm trying to ask Houser might look something like:

"So, you've got a choice between a presidential candidate who says he plans a drone strike program, versus one who says he doesn't. How much personal vice are you prepared to tolerate in the 'no drones' candidate?"

...

On the one hand, you can always argue that a drone campaign that could kill thousands of people is much less bad than any personal vices the 'no drones' candidate could possibly commit personally.

On the other hand, a candidate whose personal behavior is corrupt and brutish (e.g. Trump) is very likely to be lying or acting in bad faith when he makes a promise like 'no drones,' so at what point does his personal character inform your opinion of his likely policy stance?

[Ralin]

Yawn. I mean seriously, "it's okay when the people getting beaten up are Trump supporters?" You're not even trying.

Yes it is totally okay to beat up people who support a serial rapist endorsed by the KKK who ran on a platform of torture, murdering refugees from ISIS, ensuring that police that murder black people in the streets without legal consequences and rolling back rights for women and gays. If enough people do that they'll start to learn that it's not safe to publicly be a Trump supporter, which will help stop them from organizing and egging each other on to do more bad things.

Have you even been paying attention for the past year?

[The Vortex Empire]

Yawn. I mean seriously, "it's okay when the people getting beaten up are Trump supporters?" You're not even trying.

If enough people do that they'll start to learn that it's not safe to publicly be a Trump supporter, which will help stop them from organizing and egging each other on to do more bad things.

It'll actually do the exact opposite and make them become more organized and militant.